The Kauffeld Conundrum

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2293
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by gbin » September 11th, 2010, 4:27 pm

VanAR wrote:... Much of this, IMO, stems from environmentalists having a philosophy that the ends cannot justify the means, and so hunters are part of the problem rather than the solution...
I partly agree and partly disagree with this assessment. With respect to the latter...

I tend to be a the-ends-don't-justify-the-means kind of guy, myself, but 1) death and even suffering are personal but not ecological tragedies (it's a shame that people lose their loved ones, but it's an awfully good thing that people don't live forever), and 2) death and even suffering have always occurred and are always going to occur no matter how I or anyone else feels about them. So the means aren't really a relevant issue for me here, and I don't think they are for a lot of other conservationists, either.

But the ends are certainly still relevant. It is as absolute a certainty as anything else in this world that the animal over there is going to die, perhaps horribly. (I can't imagine that being eviscerated by a predator while alive and conscious is too much fun, for example.) If someone picks it up, takes it home and makes it a pet (or kills it for sport, meat or skin), death is still going to occur (though it might well be delayed, perhaps even considerably) and it might even still suffer en route (though hopefully not nearly as much as it likely would in the wild). But through its harvest there's a good possibility that the person doing the harvesting will develop a stronger connection to wildlife/wild lands. There are actually lots of hunters and fishermen who are staunch conservationists.

To my thinking, rational wildlife laws are designed to minimize (but not eliminate) suffering on behalf of animal welfare, and to prevent animal populations and their habitats from being harmed by the harvest of some of their members on behalf of conservation. When laws - or people - go beyond that, I certainly don't see them as doing it for conservation. It doesn't mean that what they are doing/espousing is wrong (or right), but just that it's not for conservation. Mind you, they might well have convinced themselves otherwise. ;)

chad ks wrote:Gerry,

This post was completely unnecessary...
Sorry it bothered you, Chad, but I don't share your perspective at all. When Pecos Frank launches into Tall Tale-mode, telling larger-than-life stories about his past or present that are obviously meant only to glorify him and whatever point he's trying to make (if he's trying to make a point beyond how great he is, that is), I wouldn't believe a word he writes without solid, independent confirmation, and I don't think anyone else should, either. If you enjoy his Tall Tales then I'm happy for you, but I believe that they're disruptive at best and potentially much more harmful (if anyone is mislead by the BS he spews) at worst.

Gerry

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by chad ks » September 11th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Daryl Eby wrote:Wow. No other posts on FHF for nearly 2 1/2 hours. Guess I'm not the only one reading up on Muir, Gifford, transcendentalism, and utilitarianism. My head hurts. Hope the test is open book.
When thinking about this issue, I ultimately end up with questions about whether it's better, as a herping community, to have a PURELY conversation-oriented philosophy which would require its own group of necessary elements...or is it better to have a MAXIMALLY conservation-oriented philosophy which in itself requires a completely different set of necessary elements as an ethical approach.

Let me explain...because this type of thinking could be helpful if it precedes your look into utilitarianism applied to herping. On the one hand, a PURELY conservation-oriented philosophy applied to herping might include claims that ANY behaviors or herping activities that are not conducive to conservation ought to be avoided and actively condemned. Don't road cruise if you run the risk of killing AOR herps, don't flip rocks because of the unavoidable side effects that damage the rock structure, don't lay out a/c because it alters the herp environment, etc. With this philosophy the number one virtue and priority is conservation and the means by which we should obtain it involve impact-mitigation through preventitive measures such as regulation and protection rather than freedom of the individual to pursue and collect herps. This would be a Utilitarian argument because it seeks to regulate the management of public resources by maximizing the benefits for the most people possible at the expense of the minority (=those herpers who have the following philosophy).

In a MAXIMALLY conservation-oriented philosophy the goal would be to maximize the interest in conservation in the longterm by accepting various short-term costs to conservation such as the fact that animals die when hunters kill them and that rocks get damaged when herpers flip them. With this perspective in mind a supporter of this philosophy would claim that individuals should have the right to do some short term harm (= individual deaths of animals such as deer, etc as well as rock damage and collecting) with the understanding that the long term benefits will ultimately serve conservation greater than if the short term costs were eliminated. In this case we have the argument that the corresponding exposure to nature that accompanies hunting, herping, fishing and the like will serve conservation better because people will seek to protect what they love and enjoy.

These aren't the only two possibilities to consider when thinking about how to philosophize about herping ethics, but they lead to a good question:

Which is going to result in better conservation in the long run: a view that the contact between nature and man should be minimized so that the short-term harms are eliminated with the hope that this will prevent long-term harms to conservation (=purely); or is it better to allow the short term harms to conservation with the hope that the long-term net gain will provide for a better conservation in the long run (=maximally).

This translates directly to herping.

:lol: @ Leibniz applied to herping ethics.

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2293
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by gbin » September 11th, 2010, 4:35 pm

chad ks wrote:... a PURELY conservation-oriented philosophy applied to herping might include claims that ANY behaviors or herping activities that are not conducive to conservation ought to be avoided and actively condemned. Don't road cruise if you run the risk of killing AOR herps, don't flip rocks because of the unavoidable side effects that damage the rock structure, don't lay out a/c because it alters the herp environment, etc.
And this is a great example of someone confusing conservation with other purposes, in my opinion. Conservation doesn't require that every individual animal or rock be considered important, ideally to be left inviolate. That's quite something else.

Gerry

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Daryl Eby » September 11th, 2010, 4:42 pm

My head. It. Hurts. Too. Many. Deep. Thoughts.

Is it too late to drop this course and enroll in Bikini Appreciation instead?

User avatar
Mike Pingleton
Posts: 1472
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:45 am
Location: One of the boys from Illinois
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Mike Pingleton » September 11th, 2010, 4:48 pm

those who field herp strictly online are the true conservationists. :mrgreen:

and conversationists to boot.

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2433
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by chris_mcmartin » September 11th, 2010, 4:51 pm

Daryl Eby wrote:My head. It. Hurts. Too. Many. Deep. Thoughts.

Is it too late to drop this course and enroll in Bikini Appreciation instead?

I was going to save you some trouble and tell you Gifford Pinchot is the guy who played "Balkie" on Perfect Strangers, but you blew your Saturday afternoon surfing the 'net for the info and thereby ruined my joke. 8-)

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by chad ks » September 11th, 2010, 4:53 pm

gbin wrote:
chad ks wrote:... a PURELY conservation-oriented philosophy applied to herping might include claims that ANY behaviors or herping activities that are not conducive to conservation ought to be avoided and actively condemned. Don't road cruise if you run the risk of killing AOR herps, don't flip rocks because of the unavoidable side effects that damage the rock structure, don't lay out a/c because it alters the herp environment, etc.
And this is a great example of someone confusing conservation with other purposes, in my opinion. Conservation doesn't require that every individual animal or rock be considered important, ideally to be left inviolate. That's quite something else.

Gerry
lol, wrong.

User avatar
VanAR
Posts: 590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:36 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by VanAR » September 11th, 2010, 4:55 pm

Chad, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote there, except for calling your #1 option conservation. Conservation fundamentally implies some "use", that may be reduced to minimize impacts. A more-or-less "hands-off" approach would be more correctly termed as preservation, IMO.

I do agree that there are utilitarian aspects to a preservationist/pure conservationist philosophy, and I think you hit the nail on the head with the idea of maximizing benefits. That is the oft-stated purpose of national parks, wildlife refuges, etc.

Van

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by chad ks » September 11th, 2010, 5:18 pm

VanAR wrote:Chad, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote there, except for calling your #1 option conservation. Conservation fundamentally implies some "use", that may be reduced to minimize impacts. A more-or-less "hands-off" approach would be more correctly termed as preservation, IMO.

I do agree that there are utilitarian aspects to a preservationist/pure conservationist philosophy, and I think you hit the nail on the head with the idea of maximizing benefits. That is the oft-stated purpose of national parks, wildlife refuges, etc.

Van
Understood. I meant to use conservation specifically because I didn't want to present the view as preservation, but rather as the strong form of conservation-oriented philosophy and the maximal option as the weak form. These were meant to be the two options taking for granted that no herper would fall into the preservationist category...because if someone was truly a preservationist, they wouldn't be a herper. Perhaps I need to be more clear about the pure form and that it indeed still facilitates herping forays such as hiking and passive observing, etc...

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2293
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by gbin » September 11th, 2010, 5:57 pm

chad ks wrote:
gbin wrote:
chad ks wrote:... a PURELY conservation-oriented philosophy applied to herping might include claims that ANY behaviors or herping activities that are not conducive to conservation ought to be avoided and actively condemned. Don't road cruise if you run the risk of killing AOR herps, don't flip rocks because of the unavoidable side effects that damage the rock structure, don't lay out a/c because it alters the herp environment, etc.
And this is a great example of someone confusing conservation with other purposes, in my opinion. Conservation doesn't require that every individual animal or rock be considered important, ideally to be left inviolate. That's quite something else.

Gerry
lol, wrong.
chad ks wrote:
VanAR wrote:Chad, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote there, except for calling your #1 option conservation. Conservation fundamentally implies some "use", that may be reduced to minimize impacts. A more-or-less "hands-off" approach would be more correctly termed as preservation, IMO...

Van
Understood. I meant to use conservation specifically because I didn't want to present the view as preservation, but rather as the strong form of conservation-oriented philosophy and the maximal option as the weak form. These were meant to be the two options taking for granted that no herper would fall into the preservationist category...because if someone was truly a preservationist, they wouldn't be a herper. Perhaps I need to be more clear about the pure form and that it indeed still facilitates herping forays such as hiking and passive observing, etc...
And this is a great example of someone responding to the same argument radically differently based (apparently) on his personal feelings toward the people making the argument. :lol:

Conservation, as I've always understood it applied to wildlife and wild lands, concerns itself with maintaining proper ecosystem function under all potential threats (including but not limited to natural resource use). Healthy populations are important to ecosystem function, but each individual in a population is not. Intact habitat is important to ecosystem function, but each individual rock is not. But what do I know, seeing as I'm only a longtime professional wildlife conservationist who's married to a longtime professional wildlife conservationist and has/had a great many longtime professional wildlife and wild lands conservationists as friends and colleagues?... ;)
John Vanek wrote:I just graduated with a BS in Wildlife Science, and I find this incredibly disheartening. While I personally do not hunt or fish, I buy my licenses to help support conservation. I often forget that many "environmentalists" know nothing about pragmatic conservation :(
It greatly disheartened me, too, John. I don't really believe conservationists are going to save the day in any event, but I don't see how we possibly could when so many of us are so eager to "divide and conquer" ourselves rather than tackle real issues.

Gerry

User avatar
Mike Pingleton
Posts: 1472
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:45 am
Location: One of the boys from Illinois
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Mike Pingleton » September 11th, 2010, 6:10 pm

My feeling is that we (as in a planetary 'we') will never get anywhere as long as conservation, biodiversity, etc., are labeled as environmental issues.

-Mike

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Daryl Eby » September 11th, 2010, 6:24 pm

Mike Pingleton wrote:My feeling is that we (as in a planetary 'we') will never get anywhere as long as conservation, biodiversity, etc., are labeled as environmental issues.

-Mike
What should we label them? Simply changing labels on things often increases skepticism and cynicism. Take "Global Warming" vs "Global Climate Change" as an example. That name change was a legitimate clarification, but many skeptics saw it as weaselly attempt to change the argument and dupe the public. I think we'd be better off educating "Joe Public" that we are all part of the environment and thus preserving the environment is the ultimate act of self preservation. Good luck!

User avatar
Mike Pingleton
Posts: 1472
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:45 am
Location: One of the boys from Illinois
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Mike Pingleton » September 11th, 2010, 7:13 pm

I could have thrown climate change in there as well - all are framed as environmental issues, and all are too big to be addressed within that context.

I always think of the United States' involvement in WWII as an example - a large portion of the manufacturing base in the US was converted, in a short time, to supporting the war effort. The Axis' aggression was perceived as a threat to our existence, rather than as a political issue (although politics pervades everything). And a significant portion of the population were involved in the effort as well.

As you say, people need to understand that climate change, shrinking biodiversity, etc., are all threats to our existence, rather than media talking points or problems for niche groups to champion. I think things will get a lot worse before that happens, if at all.
Daryl Eby wrote:
Mike Pingleton wrote:My feeling is that we (as in a planetary 'we') will never get anywhere as long as conservation, biodiversity, etc., are labeled as environmental issues.

-Mike
What should we label them? Simply changing labels on things often increases skepticism and cynicism. Take "Global Warming" vs "Global Climate Change" as an example. That name change was a legitimate clarification, but many skeptics saw it as weaselly attempt to change the argument and dupe the public. I think we'd be better off educating "Joe Public" that we are all part of the environment and thus preserving the environment is the ultimate act of self preservation. Good luck!

Bill Cobb
Posts: 6
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 2:19 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum - Hey Gerry

Post by Bill Cobb » September 11th, 2010, 7:40 pm

"Along with letting a few more people into the tent,"

Are you going to let Pecos Frank into the tent?

Bill Cobb

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2293
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum - Hey Gerry

Post by gbin » September 11th, 2010, 8:14 pm

Bill Cobb wrote:Are you going to let Pecos Frank into the tent?
I wouldn't exclude anyone who really belongs. As I see it (and said before), "What matters is that we... care about wildlife and wild lands, that we act on our caring, and that we have sufficient understanding of the real issues and their priority that the way we act actually has some beneficial effect." From what I've seen of him here in the forum, I have no trouble believing the first two apply. I'm not so sure about the third, though, and in any event I certainly wouldn't take his word for anything. ;)

Gerry

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4733
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Brian Hubbs » September 11th, 2010, 8:32 pm

OK, maybe some of my comments were a bit sweeping...but, my point was that we can see as many snakes today in the areas Kauffeld exploited as he saw back then...with the possible exceptions of Okeetee, Cicero Swamp, and the definite exceptions of Payne's Prairie and the NY timber dens. And no, Pecos Frank (who politely refers to me as GOD, and I do appreciate that... :lol: ) was not correct that i referred only to kingsnakes, I was referring to all snakes mentioned by Kauffeld in SE AZ. I was talking about the little rattlers, the Mtn kings, the Ajo Road's teeny, tiny snakes, and the common kings in the Sulfur Springs Valley. Gilas are also seen occasionally, even where Kauffeld saw them...and that is truly amazing if any real harm was done...

So, yes the hobby is very different today, but no, we have not reached the brink of disaster yet due to our numbers...not even in most of Kauffeld's exploited terrains...

(Back to YOU Frank...)

Was this post helpful to you?

Yes
No
I can't remember, but I like beans

Bill Cobb
Posts: 6
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 2:19 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum: for Gerry

Post by Bill Cobb » September 11th, 2010, 9:30 pm

Hi Gerry,

I appreciate your answer, and I think it is a good one. I really appreciated your information above about hunters, collecting, etc. posted above.

I am interested in why Pecos Frank seems to irritate you so much, and so quickly.

Since this thread is partially about old dead guys, I would like to quote one of them.

"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."
Henry David Thoreau

IMO, Pecos Frank hears and steps to a different drummer. I do not think he should be required to step to your drummer, or anyone else’s drummer.

To say this another way, the scientific/academia world you live in is only one of many worldviews. It appears that you think your worldview is the only correct one, and that everyone else must speak in your terms, and use your language. I disagree. IMO, there are other worldviews that are just as valid; at least they are to me.

IMO, Franks sees what he sees, and reports what he sees from his viewpoint. I find his viewpoint unique, interesting, and thought provoking. I find his writing style entertaining. Maybe he really is a “snake whisperer” or he “dances with Varanus”. In terms of captive breeding, he does seem to be able to “think outside the sweater box”. Maybe he is able to see things and understand things others, or you, or I, cannot. Are you certain none of these things are possible?

Let me try a few other questions.

If Pecos Frank has 10% of the experience he says he does, how could he know nothing?

IMO, Pecos Frank does know a lot about reptiles and nature in general. If what he knows does not fit into the scientific/academia worldview, is his knowledge wrong? Is his knowledge worthless?

Bill Cobb

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by chad ks » September 11th, 2010, 11:37 pm

And this is a great example of someone responding to the same argument radically differently based (apparently) on his personal feelings toward the people making the argument.

Conservation, as I've always understood it applied to wildlife and wild lands, concerns itself with maintaining proper ecosystem function under all potential threats (including but not limited to natural resource use). Healthy populations are important to ecosystem function, but each individual in a population is not. Intact habitat is important to ecosystem function, but each individual rock is not. But what do I know, seeing as I'm only a longtime professional wildlife conservationist who's married to a longtime professional wildlife conservationist and has/had a great many longtime professional wildlife and wild lands conservationists as friends and colleagues?...
Yes, there was a difference in how I responded to you versus Van for a few reasons: he didn't act like an ass and he stated his belief clearly where as you used some strange expository voice to describe what I was doing...or something. Anyway, I understand what you both meant, good point(s). Perhaps preservation would have been a better word.

User avatar
-EJ
Posts: 1078
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:17 am

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by -EJ » September 12th, 2010, 3:02 am

The op seems to be a relatively new participant to the forum. I'm willing to bet the intent was not to stir stuff.

It is a valid point... why can't those who do not like to collect tolerate those who do. You seem to be asking those who collect to just keep it to themselves.

The point here is that there is an elitists mentality that probably does more harm than good.

I'm willing to bet that most people (not the select vocal group) associate field herping with collecting.


gbin wrote:1) It was indeed a long time ago.

2) He likely didn't collect everything he saw, but rather only reported on a lot of what he collected (and over a long period of time).

3) He wasn't collecting to sell, let alone sell illegally, nor even just for his personal collection; he was collecting for a zoo (and the animals were thereby shared with and used for educating many people).

4) Even if he had been collecting to sell, eat or whatever, he was acting within the law and caused no demonstrable harm to animal populations or habitats.

What really confuses me is why people keep trying to stir this pot. Some people collect and some people don't. Some people manipulate for photographs and some people don't. Some people post to the forum soon after their hunts and some people don't. So long as it's all legal and no demonstrable harm is being done, so what? I know there are some here who perceive harm in all kinds of places where it hasn't actually been demonstrated, but their concerns have been amply expressed, discussed and debated. Is the idea to keep stirring this pot until people abide by the wishes of precautionary principle practitioners just because they've been worn down by endless verbiage? If so, that's not going to happen. All that's going to happen is that people are going to wander away from the forum, for a little or long while, in the hope that threads like this will have ceased by the time they return. It'd be different if folks had substantially new things to say or new evidence to consider, but they don't. So how about we go back to posting about field herping?

Gerry

User avatar
-EJ
Posts: 1078
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:17 am

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by -EJ » September 12th, 2010, 3:21 am

I don't know about the rest of yall... but if you can't keep it simple I'm willing to bet you loose half the audience... back to google.
VanAR wrote:While you're at it, look up the differences between transcendentalism and utilitarianism, because those philosophies basically underly the goals of preservation and conservation, respectively. Muir espoused the transcendental qualities of nature, and referred to parks and other preserves as places for rest, inspiration, and prayer. Gifford espoused the utilitarian qualities- that nature provides the tools and materials necessary for society, and must thus be managed sustainably to ensure continued use and survival of mankind. Both opposed over-exploitation, but for different reasons.

Arguably, both reasons could be considered "selfish" as both philosophies "use" the environment. Neither preservation nor conservation are necessarily movements to protect nature, per se. Rather, they are both movements to protect our ability to use and enjoy nature. Note that this is just a cynical aside aimed at those advocating that any manipulation of snakes is done solely for "selfish" reasons with no regard for the snake.

Interestingly, most biologists I've met are utilitarian. The ones that are transcendentalist generally gravitate to education rather than research because of the manipulation inherently necessary for good science. OTOH, the most vocal environmentalists are usually transcendentalist, and oppose utilitarianism, again as "the ends justifying the means".

Van

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2293
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum: for Gerry

Post by gbin » September 12th, 2010, 6:20 am

Bill Cobb wrote:I am interested in why Pecos Frank seems to irritate you so much, and so quickly.
Bill, when I write I often say "I think," "I believe," "it's my opinion," etc., but only to emphasize that what I am presenting is my view rather than The Way Things Are. (I don't believe anyone's world view is entirely right or wrong, but some ways are more effective than others in bringing one's perceptions more in line with reality. I am quite convinced that the scientific method is the best way we have found to date.) Beyond that, I really have no interest in discussing me, Pecos Frank or anyone else. When I do it's to add what I see as important context for the discussion at hand (e.g. this guy apparently lives in a narcissistic fantasyland and that makes his reports untrustworthy, that guy looks to have a chip on his shoulder and that should be taken into account when reading what he wrote there, etc.). So I'm not going to indulge your request that I dissect my thoughts about him or anyone else. I will point out, though, that I don't appreciate having erroneous statements attributed to me. I never said, for example, that he knows nothing. (On the contrary, I have often commented on what a shame it is that what he knows, which may indeed be considerable, is buried under so much fictional garbage.)

Gerry

gulo
Posts: 27
Joined: September 5th, 2010, 9:35 am

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by gulo » September 12th, 2010, 6:22 am

gbin wrote:
gulo wrote:I can show you plenty of spots from my own herping history that still exist, where the habitat has not undergone any radical (visible) change, where the snakes have not only gone from abundance to scarcity, but in more than a few cases have utterly vanished - gone completely. It is a dangerous assumption you are making here.
I'm finding it increasingly hilarious when you talk about other people making assumptions, gulo. You see fewer herps somewhere and can't see any obvious change to the habitat, so you assume with great confidence that it's because the animals have disappeared due to direct disturbance or collection. I and a number of others here recognize that you may be right, but that you're also discarding any serious consideration of alternative explanations that seem equally or even more plausible. And we're the ones making assumptions? :roll: And of course, let's not forget that if we argue against or even just question your stance, we - who you don't know in the slightest - must be doing so just to defend our dirty practices. :roll:

Gerry
Gerry, you've missed my point, and if i'm guilty of assuming things about people's practices, then so are you.

What other things that may affect herps? (Find me, by the way, where i openly and directly said I believed it was the herpers who denuded my spots...) Traffic mortality? Absolutely! Agricultural chemicals? With certainty!

Look - if i'm pointing fingers at anyone here, I am also pointing fingers at myself - I am one of you, for Chrissakes.

My message, and I guess I am guilty of not communicating clearly enough, is this: just be careful and assume that you can do harm, and may be doing it. There are too many pressures on the planet - including herps - right now, and too damn many people not to take this approach. I too would like to share my spots, but I won't (unless they are already generally known,) because to do so is too dangerous for the herps.

As for those who say we must not use nature in any way, I agree this is nonsense, and utterly unnatural. Everything that lives has some impact.

Kauffeld was not a God but he was a great communicator. And a great communicator amongst our species, any social species I suppose, stands apart. This was his greatest gift. Those books of his are still the most enjoyable ones to read dealing with the subject that I have read. They are magic. He had a gift.

User avatar
monklet
Posts: 2648
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:44 pm
Location: Ventura, CA
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by monklet » September 12th, 2010, 6:41 am

Mike Pingleton wrote:those who field herp strictly online are the true conservationists. :mrgreen:

and conversationists to boot.
That would be me :roll:
Mike Pingleton wrote:My feeling is that we (as in a planetary 'we') will never get anywhere as long as conservation, biodiversity, etc., are labeled as environmental issues.
:?: Interesting supposition, would you care to elaborate Mike? I'd like to know what you mean.

User avatar
Mike Pingleton
Posts: 1472
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:45 am
Location: One of the boys from Illinois
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Mike Pingleton » September 12th, 2010, 7:38 am

monklet wrote:
:?: Interesting supposition, would you care to elaborate Mike? I'd like to know what you mean.
I gave it a shot earlier in this thread:
Mike Pingleton wrote:I could have thrown climate change in there as well - all are framed as environmental issues, and all are too big to be addressed within that context.

I always think of the United States' involvement in WWII as an example - a large portion of the manufacturing base in the US was converted, in a short time, to supporting the war effort. The Axis' aggression was perceived as a threat to our existence, rather than as a political issue (although politics pervades everything). And a significant portion of the population were involved in the effort as well.

As you say, people need to understand that climate change, shrinking biodiversity, etc., are all threats to our existence, rather than media talking points or problems for niche groups to champion. I think things will get a lot worse before that happens, if at all.
In a world heading towards 7 billion people (cue Don LaFontaine voice) can we really address these issues within the customary political and social frameworks? They look to be species survival issues to me. Likely I will shuffle off this mortal coil before things come to a head, but what about my children, and their children? And whatever biota remains?

OTH, George Carlin often said "the planet is fine. WE are the ones who are f**ked". :crazyeyes:

-Mike

User avatar
kansascrote
Posts: 64
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:29 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by kansascrote » September 12th, 2010, 7:42 am

I just have to post my thoughts? For any one of us to even began to slur the name of Carl Kauffeld is just mind blowing! We as herpers today jump into our air conditioned four wheel drive’s and go down our nice blacktop highways to take a few pics so we can go home and just download our photos while typing a few notes on our keyboards! I don’t think that there is one among us that ever devoted their life to herping at the level that this man did! I think that we have to look at what he did in the time period that he did it? How long would it take most of us to learn what he knew without the internet! How many of us would sit and write thousands of notes if we had to do it by hand? More so he did it just for the love of rattlesnakes, NOT to make money writing books or get his own TV show? I am not trying to offend any one here but at the same time the slurring of this mans name OFFENDED me!

User avatar
muskiemagnet
Posts: 1253
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:43 am
Location: kaukauna, wi

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by muskiemagnet » September 12th, 2010, 7:45 am

mike brings up a very good point. it is about "our" impacts. preservation, conservation, potato, potato, blah, blah, blah.

it's about respect. we all fear that something we care about is being disrespected. don't forget though, that fear is a result of not knowing.

i'm no scientist, but i'd be willing to bet that it would be hard to do a study of the impacts of herpers. however, without said study(no one has mentioned any published studies, so i assume there are none), we are all speculating. this is a discussion of assumptions based on opinions which are based on individual views of how herps/habitat should be respected.

if we all keep bickering like this, dad may give us all a time out. what i'm getting at is this: when biodiversity shrinks to the point where no one is allowed to view/enjoy it. this forum will be a moot point. i know we are a long ways from it, but the existence of the human race depends on biodiversity. our locust mentality will bring us to the point when the world will have to preserve that which we want to take care of now. i guarantee that your spots will no longer get pounded.

i have said before that i advocate no collecting. in my opinion, biodiversity needs them more. however, until i see good data regarding herpers significantly damaging populations, i say collect if you want. don't break laws, and you won't irritate me.

respect as you see fit. tread lightly, and put everything back the way you found it.

-ben

User avatar
monklet
Posts: 2648
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:44 pm
Location: Ventura, CA
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by monklet » September 12th, 2010, 7:59 am

Thanks Mike, for some reason I haven't bothered to wade through this whole thread ;) ...I seem to recall that environmentalism used to encompass a wide range of concerns, from species conservation to the degradation of the ozone layer. Seems politics and human interest has shifted the meaning more toward those aspects which directly influence economics, human health and comfort with native ecologies and species diversity taking a back seat (the public at large doesn't wish to afford those obscure and trivial issues).
Mike Pingleton wrote:OTH, George Carlin often said "the planet is fine. WE are the ones who are f**ked". :crazyeyes:
Never heard him say that but I've been professing that for years and years. George just put it more succinctly :lol: Until the Sun blows up, this planet will be fine.

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Daryl Eby » September 12th, 2010, 8:01 am

kansascrote wrote:the slurring of this mans name OFFENDED me!
I appreciate where you are coming from, but I don't think this discussion has slurred Kauffeld's name. Pretty much everyone has acknowledged his unique and considerable contributions. The critiques have been about the very actions that he himself apparently regretted later in his own life. Namely, disclosing localities and possibly some unwarranted collection.

Perhaps some of Frank's comments went toward challenging Kauffeld's character. However, those where just the personal opinions and observations of one of the groups more uniquely opinionated and outspoken members. If you want to challenge his comments, do so directly. I'm sure he'd be more than willing to defend himself and tell more stories about his own greatness. Just wait while I go get some popcorn.

stlouisdude
Posts: 412
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by stlouisdude » September 12th, 2010, 8:06 am

Do you guys really believe all these creatures are needed for the human race to survive? I don't.

I think there is a lot of value in them in many ways ranging from medical value to food value, but I don't think our lives are hinging upon them. If all the lizards disappeared tomorrow, do you guys really believe humans would be doomed? I think the birds would find something else to eat, and snakes that depends upon lizards might go away, but really the end of the human race? Seems extreme. Humans are capable of living on just a few food items and apparently it takes a lot of pollution to do us in and we have all kind of fertility treatments we use to overcome the presumed effects of pollutants. We are amazing, adaptable creatures ourselves.

User avatar
kansascrote
Posts: 64
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:29 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by kansascrote » September 12th, 2010, 8:17 am

Thank you Daryl!!!!!
Point taken.

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Daryl Eby » September 12th, 2010, 8:25 am

stlouisdude wrote:Do you guys really believe all these creatures are needed for the human race to survive? I don't.
Maybe so, maybe no. The tricky part is all of the interdependencies among the web of species. We have a basic understanding of some of those interdepencies, but I'm certain that we have completely overlooked many others. Who can say what might be a catastrophic trigger or tipping point? If the changes are small and/or gradual then our dynamic planetary ecosystem will adapt and our species will likely adapt to be able to continue along our exploitative path. At some point though, especially if the changes are large and/or fast we may not be able to adapt quickly enough. Just ask the dinosaurs.

Also, even if our species continues to adapt and thrive, do we really have the right to continue doing so at such a high expense to the ecosystem at large?

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: For Daryl and others like him

Post by Daryl Eby » September 12th, 2010, 9:40 am

Geesh Frank, re-read my comments. I didn't attack you and I didn't say you attacked Kauffeld's character. I said, "Perhaps some of Frank's comments went toward challenging Kauffeld's character." Notice the italicized words. That's a far cry from definitively saying that you attacked Kauffeld. On the other hand you did say the following:
The real truth is, K was trusted with local information, like many here trust others. He violated that trust. His books as wonderful as they are, gave up local information that was trusted to him by others, he did not go out and find his own locals. (pers. comm. with the peoples who gave up the information)
That certainly sounds like you were attacking his character as violating the trust of others. You also said:
K's books were a private endover of his, not a zoo exercise. So being a curator was the tool he used(and being a very nice guy) to get others to devulge local information.
That sounds like you are saying that he abused his professional status to manipulate others.

Please feel free to revise those statements about "K" if you didn't intend for them to be so blunt. Or, reiterate and expand on them. I don't care. Just don't make comments that sound like you are attacking him and then get upset at me when I say "perhaps" you challenged him.

Also, you seem awfully hung up on my passing comment (admittedly snarky) that you would "tell more stories about your greatness." Again, I didn't say you were great or weren't great. Your stories speak for themselves. Some will hear them and think you are great. Some will hear them and merely think that you think you are great. Almost everyone will find them entertaining and even informative on some level. To clarify things further, I personally have no idea how exaggerated (if at all) any of your stories are and I don't recall ever accusing you of making things up or telling "tall tells". I'll leave those accusations to others and will always read your replies when you defend yourself. Now excuse me while I go get some more butter for my popcorn.

Oh, almost forgot, I have a customer that may want to contract you for some of your famous rock facades. Seriously. You can stay at their vacation home near the Christmas Mountains. We can do some observational field herping while you are at it. I'll supply s'mores and beer for around the fire. Maybe even some popcorn.
:beer:

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2433
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by chris_mcmartin » September 12th, 2010, 10:55 am

Daryl Eby wrote:Also, even if our species continues to adapt and thrive, do we really have the right to continue doing so at such a high expense to the ecosystem at large?
"Rights" are a human concept. We humans, as one participating species in the interplay between species, are just displaying/exercising natural selection to the extreme, and it could be self-critiquing/self-correcting in the future. ;)

User avatar
muskiemagnet
Posts: 1253
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:43 am
Location: kaukauna, wi

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by muskiemagnet » September 12th, 2010, 11:01 am

Daryl Eby wrote:
stlouisdude wrote:Do you guys really believe all these creatures are needed for the human race to survive? I don't.
Maybe so, maybe no. The tricky part is all of the interdependencies among the web of species. We have a basic understanding of some of those interdepencies, but I'm certain that we have completely overlooked many others. Who can say what might be a catastrophic trigger or tipping point? If the changes are small and/or gradual then our dynamic planetary ecosystem will adapt and our species will likely adapt to be able to continue along our exploitative path. At some point though, especially if the changes are large and/or fast we may not be able to adapt quickly enough. Just ask the dinosaurs.

Also, even if our species continues to adapt and thrive, do we really have the right to continue doing so at such a high expense to the ecosystem at large?
nature will always survive. no doubt. however:

not sure what painting it is, but it is the one from "ferris bueller's day off" the one that cameron stared at for so long. that is a great painting comprised of small dots of color, each placed in the right place to create something bigger and even more beautiful. if each dot represents a population, and each color represents a species, what happens as each dot is removed? eventually the painting loses it's beauty and also it's purpose. stlouisdude, you are right. not all are "needed" for survival. i guess that's ok if you like paintings with lots of brown, gray, and black. i prefer lots of color.

i know man is intelligent, but this also fosters arrogance. daryl's "tipping point" is real. let's be intelligent and try to stay far from it.

"This little snake and all his kind must be sacrificed to 'tame the wilderness,' to make it safe for man-man, who can 'tame' everything but himself; from himself he can never be safe."-Carl Kauffeld

he saw it too.

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Daryl Eby » September 12th, 2010, 11:12 am

muskiemagnet wrote:if each dot represents a population, and each color represents a species, what happens as each dot is removed? eventually the painting loses it's beauty and also it's purpose.
Yep. Especially when removing one dot can also cause an unknown number of other dots to disappear, move, or change color. It's like a hyper complex game of Russian roulette and our dot will eventually take a hit.

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Daryl Eby » September 12th, 2010, 11:19 am

chris_mcmartin wrote:"Rights" are a human concept.
True. As a human, I often employ human concepts. :mrgreen:

User avatar
muskiemagnet
Posts: 1253
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:43 am
Location: kaukauna, wi

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by muskiemagnet » September 12th, 2010, 11:38 am

Daryl Eby wrote:
muskiemagnet wrote:if each dot represents a population, and each color represents a species, what happens as each dot is removed? eventually the painting loses it's beauty and also it's purpose.
Yep. Especially when removing one dot can also cause an unknown number of other dots to disappear, move, or change color. It's like a hyper complex game of Russian roulette and our dot will eventually take a hit.

now i'm no artist, but i'm surmising that one can paint a better picture with more colors. only my opinion of course. ;)

User avatar
muskiemagnet
Posts: 1253
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:43 am
Location: kaukauna, wi

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by muskiemagnet » September 12th, 2010, 11:50 am

i'm wondering if we all should consider bringing inflatable sumo suits to any group outings.

and by the way, midwest chapter rules!!!

snap into a slim jim.

:)

RobK

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by RobK » September 12th, 2010, 2:39 pm

stlouisdude wrote:Do you guys really believe all these creatures are needed for the human race to survive? I don't. I think there is a lot of value in them in many ways ranging from medical value to food value, but I don't think our lives are hinging upon them. If all the lizards disappeared tomorrow, do you guys really believe humans would be doomed? I think the birds would find something else to eat, and snakes that depends upon lizards might go away, but really the end of the human race? Seems extreme. Humans are capable of living on just a few food items and apparently it takes a lot of pollution to do us in and we have all kind of fertility treatments we use to overcome the presumed effects of pollutants. We are amazing, adaptable creatures ourselves.
Could go a lot of directions with this post, instead I'll wax philosophical for a moment and throw this quote out (which is probably a variation on the original, but it was something to this effect)

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated ~Gandhi

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2433
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by chris_mcmartin » September 12th, 2010, 5:21 pm

Daryl Eby wrote:
chris_mcmartin wrote:"Rights" are a human concept.
True. As a human, I often employ human concepts. :mrgreen:
I do too, just not where they're inappropriate. :P

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2293
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by gbin » September 13th, 2010, 6:01 pm

Pecos Frank wrote:... Ducks unlimited and other sport groups aid in the conservation of a species to be HUNTED and killed by the support groups...
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that any of the people in those organizations actually grew to care about conserving wildlife and wild lands thanks to their hunting and/or other experiences with nature. After all, only Pecos Frank has the long history of exceptional experience, not to mention the keen insight into the true worth of his experience, necessary to acquire such incredible wisdom. Doubtless his good friends who hold high places in all those organizations - or wait, didn't they actually found the organizations? surely they're much more important than to merely be top officers in them - told him so. :roll:

Gerry

User avatar
ACK!
Posts: 61
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: The Red Planet

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by ACK! » September 13th, 2010, 6:26 pm

gbin wrote:
Pecos Frank wrote:... Ducks unlimited and other sport groups aid in the conservation of a species to be HUNTED and killed by the support groups...
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that any of the people in those organizations actually grew to care about conserving wildlife and wild lands thanks to their hunting and/or other experiences with nature. After all, only Pecos Frank has the long history of exceptional experience, not to mention the keen insight into the true worth of his experience, necessary to acquire such incredible wisdom. Doubtless his good friends who hold high places in all those organizations - or wait, didn't they actually found the organizations? surely they're much more important than to merely be top officers in them - told him so. :roll:

Gerry
WACKADOODLE!!! :crazyeyes:


Gerry,

The empirical evidence suggests it's time "U" bought a vowel...


Image

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Daryl Eby » September 13th, 2010, 6:39 pm

John Vanek wrote:
Frank wrote:Ducks unlimited and other sport groups aid in the conservation of a species to be HUNTED and killed by the support groups...
Ooh, can we now talk about compensatory versus additive mortality in waterfowl?
Sure, we can talk about it. But, please use simple words so that I can understand. :oops:

Edit: Corrected attribution in quote

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2293
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by gbin » September 13th, 2010, 6:44 pm

John Vanek wrote:
gbin wrote:Ducks unlimited and other sport groups aid in the conservation of a species to be HUNTED and killed by the support groups...
Ooh, can we now talk about compensatory versus additive mortality in waterfowl?
John, we can talk about whatever you like. But please don't attribute to me quotes that actually belong to Pecos Frank. That's just plain wrong! :lol:

Gerry

User avatar
Biker Dave
Posts: 2854
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 6:56 pm
Location: Wittmann,AZ

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Biker Dave » September 13th, 2010, 8:34 pm

Holy Crap!

I put up a simple observation along with a question or two (what was my original question anyway?) and then leave for a weekend herp trip. :thumb:

Upon my return ---- BAM ---- four frikkin pages of discussion! :D

And only one person - who continued to post through all four pages - seemed to not be interested in the topic. :?

Let me clear up :idea: a couple things for (housekeeping reasons) ...

1. When I refered to CK as " A Herping God" it was more for a lack of a better term. I
think now the better term would be a "Field Herping Founding Father". I in no way
intended to create a religious aspect to CK greatness.
2. I am not new to the forum, I've been around for a couple two three years and am an
officer in the AZ Chapter.
3. As a non-academic, non-professional, herper I am completely stoked that this many
people participated in this thread instead of just sitting back and saying to
themselves ... "whatever". Sure, some of the replies were way off base, IMO, to my
original question but if I am willing to approach all the posts with an open mind (sans
the flame posts) it is amazing the body of knowledge contained in this forum!
One of the reasons I so enjoy this forum is that I feel as if I am either in a classroom
at some university, or sitting in a college dorm hallway at 3am drinking beers with bio
major students shootin the sh*t. :beer: Either way, this hobbyist herpetologist is able
to glean a lot of good information which expands my mind (and knowledge base)
without the use of hallucinogens or other mind altering substances. (My brain feels so
alive after reading these four pages!)

So from my original question I have learned that what I said in the original post seems to be the general opinion ... it was a different time and that later in life CK regretted his GPS like directions to herping spots.

Works for me! Thanks everyone, continue to discuss if you want.

Dave Weber
AZ Chapter
Conservation Officer

User avatar
John Martin
Posts: 515
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 9:57 pm
Location: North end of Lake Okeechobee, Florida

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by John Martin » September 13th, 2010, 10:59 pm

gbin wrote: After all, only Pecos Frank has the long history of exceptional experience, not to mention blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...Gerry
Gerry, I don't know you at all but, jeez dude, please give it a rest. If you truly have so much animosity towards Frank, please take up your lovers' quarrel with him via PM. I think most of the rest of us are getting quite tired of your ranting, and all this accomplishes is to detract from an otherwise interesting discussion. ACK!, that made me piss myself! :thumb:

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2293
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by gbin » September 14th, 2010, 5:03 am

Biker Dave wrote:Holy Crap!

I put up a simple observation along with a question or two (what was my original question anyway?)...
That's rather disingenuous, Dave. Generating controversy was obviously your goal in starting this thread, as you even essentially stated in the opening line of your first post:
Biker Dave wrote:Here I go .... stirring up a big kettle of trouble ..... (or I'm just not paying attention)...
I guess I'm glad for you, anyway, that you got what you wanted. But mostly what I see this thread as having done is push people here still further away from each other than they already were due to other recent contentious threads. Or maybe that was the purpose in stirring the pot?...

Gerry

User avatar
ACK!
Posts: 61
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: The Red Planet

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by ACK! » September 14th, 2010, 9:01 am

gbin wrote:
Biker Dave wrote:Holy Crap!

I put up a simple observation along with a question or two (what was my original question anyway?)...
That's rather disingenuous, Dave. Generating controversy was obviously your goal in starting this thread, as you even essentially stated in the opening line of your first post:
Biker Dave wrote:Here I go .... stirring up a big kettle of trouble ..... (or I'm just not paying attention)...
I guess I'm glad for you, anyway, that you got what you wanted. But mostly what I see this thread as having done is push people here still further away from each other than they already were due to other recent contentious threads. Or maybe that was the purpose in stirring the pot?...

Gerry
WACKADOODLE!!! :crazyeyes:


Image

Terry Vandeventer
Posts: 68
Joined: June 19th, 2010, 3:58 am

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Terry Vandeventer » September 14th, 2010, 1:53 pm

JEEZ! I was out of town a couple of days and upon my return I've tried to wade through this thread. Finally resorted to skimming and my head is still spinning.

Kauffeld was a good guy. Personally he had his demons (chain-smoker, alcoholic, etc), but he also had passion. In his books he did not reveal a single locality that was not already well known. Okeetee, Big Bend, Payne's Prairie, the Sky Islands of Arizona, were all already destinations of herpetologists. They were published in the journals and were shared freely via word of mouth. Nobody here is giving Albert and Anna Wright any trouble and their monumental works are filled with hundreds of localities. And they killed every snake they collected. They pickled thousands of them. Ditmars was a showman and a bit of a liar, inventing stories and making up data, but he made reptiles popular to the common man. Ross Allen collected and killed 250,000 Eastern Diamondbacks, but he inspired hundreds of children, worked with the Boy Scouts, and produced venom for the Second World War effort.

Everyone on these forums are the progeny of these pioneers, whether you like it or not. Without Carl Kauffeld, many of you would never have headed in the directions you have. That includes those of you who have never read his books. And if you haven't, shame on you, because you've missed out on the history and experiences that, for better or worse, brought us here today.

Carl Kauffeld was a tremendous correspondant. Every Saturday was devoted to typing replies to the "fan mail" he recieved. People were most often asking for localities (Quote, "down to the square yard") for their desired quarry. He told them politely to enjoy doing their own research under their own steam. Questions about herpetology aside from revealing localities, was answered profusely.

I have been to the mountains of Arizona many times since the late sixties. In the beginning we took topo maps, scientific articals, and...Kauffeld's books. Now, years later we rarely leave the switchback trails. We see everything we want to see without stepping off the trail. We've seen it all. Yet, the last time I went up Ramsey Canyon (Whoops! Sorry) we were chided by the Nature Conservency personnel not to touch the snakes and that the snake hunters were turning all of the rocks over and leaving them. Duh, it was a black bear...

With some serious exceptions (hydraulic jacks, crow-bars, no conscience commercial poachers, etc) native wildlife often disturbs the habitat as much as herpers, and certainly more. I've never watched a bear replace a rock.

Kauffeld had no problems with other people keeping collections of live snakes. Why in the world would he have published "Snakes: the Keeper and the Kept?" He pioneered the early techniques that we all use today with our captive animals. And yes, many if not most of us here on the forums keep live reptiles in captivity. Deal with it.

I guess I just get a little pissed sometimes. This thread started out as a question and it got way off track. Nobody's perfect and Carl Kauffeld certainly was not. But everybody here owes him a debt of gratitude. Enough from me.

Cheers,

Terry Vandeventer

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kauffeld Conundrum

Post by Daryl Eby » September 14th, 2010, 2:14 pm

John Vanek wrote:Where did you guys stumble across mentors and fellow herping buddies?
Based on a couple of recent threads, I'd guess tattoo parlors and biker clubs. Possibly philosophy conventions, but certainly not churches. :lol:

Post Reply